An Oklahoma court recently ruled against an attempt to create a Catholic charter school, in a case that might eventually find its way to the federal Supreme Court and set important national precedent. But Tal Fortgang argues that Jews should nonetheless focus on creating such educational institutions of their own:

Jewish charter schools (JCSs)—publicly funded but independently operated K–12 schools teaching Jewish and secular subjects—would address many of the American Jewish community’s most vexing problems. JCSs avoid the “tuition crisis” that has put Jewish day schools out of reach for middle-class Jews and forced schools to rely on massive donations. They provide an alternative to public schools where Jews have traditionally thrived but feel increasingly unwelcome because of the rise of DEI programming and concurrent anti-Israel orthodoxy. And JCSs in fledgling communities would have the salutary effect of allowing Jews to start branching out geographically, easing the pressure to live in expensive neighborhoods.

Such a project, Fortgang argues, would also entail Jews changing their attitudes to the Constitution itself, and the debate over whether it should primarily function to separate completely between political and religious institutions, or to encourage the flourishing of a variety of religious institutions. Until now, American Jews have overwhelmingly taken the former view, while Fortgang believes they should endorse the latter.

[O]ne thing separationism did not do is what American Jews . . . had counted on it to do: foster pluralistic coexistence. We should stop expecting it to do that or hoping that, suddenly, it will. Separationism is not pluralism. It is closer to the opposite, because it wrongly suggests that we address the problem of coexistence by leveling down—that is, trying to achieve equality by excluding certain forms of argumentation, specifically pushing faith-based ideas out of the public square. We should instead commit to leveling up, encouraging all voices to speak up, thereby allowing Americans to persuade and be persuaded.

If there’s one lesson to be learned from the history of the Israel-Arab conflict, it’s never to be confident that an end is in sight. Ehud Yaari nevertheless—and with all due caution—points to some noteworthy developments:

The absolute primacy of “armed struggle” in Palestinian discourse has discouraged any serious attempt to discuss or plan for a future Palestinian state. Palestinian political literature is devoid of any substantial debate over what kind of a state they aspire to create. What would be its economic, foreign, and social policies?

One significant exception was a seminar held by Hamas in Gaza—under the auspices of the late Yahya Sinwar—prior to October 7, 2023. The main focus of what was described as a brainstorming session was the question of how to deal with the Jews in the land to be liberated. A broad consensus between the participants was reached that most Israeli Jews should be eradicated or expelled while those contributing to Israel’s success in high tech and other critical domains would be forced to serve the new Palestinian authorities.

Yet, the ongoing aftershocks from the ongoing war in Gaza are posing questions among Palestinians concerning the viability of armed struggle. So far this trend is reflected mainly in stormy exchanges on social-media platforms and internal controversies within Hamas. There is mounting criticism leveled at the late Mohammad Deif and Yahya Sinwar for embarking upon an uncoordinated offensive that is resulting in a “Second Nakba”—a repeat of the defeat and mass displacement caused by launching the war in 1948.

To be sure, “armed struggle” is still being preached daily to the Palestinian communities by Iran and Iranian proxies, and at least half the Palestinian public—according to various polls—believe it remains indispensable. But doubts are being heard. We may be reaching a point where the Palestinians will feel compelled to make a choice between the road which led to past failures and an attempt to chart a new route. It will certainly require time and is bound to cause fractures and divisions, perhaps even a violent split, among the Palestinians.